1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Well, SH, it seems we have upset you out of your trolling for about ten seconds.  Or at least Sthira did.

 

Your asshattery is plain from page one if this thread; your undignified responses to legitimate points raised by the first atheists here set the tone for the entire thread.  That's on you.   

 

I don't see any mods in here warning us, probably because they can see how much of a hypocrite and a clown you've been.

 

Last year, I engaged you for the first time.  You were not interested in intellectual discourse.  You began mocking me immediately.  Now you want to cry because we're making jokes in this thread?

 

It's pretty obvious that you're not serious in any of this, so why should anybody else take this seriously?  Or take you seriously?

 

You're told again and again that your questions are all wrong, your arguments are poorly worded, incoherent and frankly idiotic considering the topic ("prove atheism is true lololol"), your demands are irrational, you build beaucoup straw men of atheism, you try to force some bullshit "new atheist" position on every last atheist in the world despite them saying they believe something different ... it doesn't matter, you pretend nobody said anything at all.

 

So fuck it, right?  We're just going to have a good time, there's no reason to waste any more energy on serious replies to your inanity.

 

 

 

 

... So whatever, it's time to return to PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ATHEISM!   

 

I'll post more soon.

Wow love your cogent arguments.  Nothing but personal attacks but typical.

[shadowhawk]

Just prove god and all will be well and don't expect others to believe in your sky daddy until that happens.
Also don't try to convince others otherwise that their beliefs are wrong and they should believe in your sky daddy because your magic book told you to do so.

Go have your beliefs but don't let them interrupt or influence my life. Keep them in your house or your church. Leave my mind and my children's minds alone, we don't want your moral code or imposed biblical ethics in our lives.
You christians should go away and live how you say you want others to live, but you fail so miserably on all of the moral and ethical values.


And stop raping children you dirty fuckers.

 

[shadowhawk]

One last thing; I think SH has done everything in the book "How to Make an Ass of Yourself in Front of Atheists" except insist that I am a moral relativist because I am an atheist (which is a very popular one with the anti-atheists).  He might have but I don't remember any specifics; his list of offenses is pretty long.  His fellow Christian Valor sure did it to me though, in his own thread.

 

You can't reasonably demand that someone defend a position they disagree with.  It's absurd.

Of course I didn't demand you defend a position you disagreed with.Nonsense.  You didn't disagree, you were a mocker.

 

[shadowhawk]

The above is evidence for Atheism, all there is.

[Duchykins]

Of course I didn't demand you defend a position you disagreed with.Nonsense.  You didn't disagree, you were a mocker.

 

 

 

 

Now you're a liar.  That or you just can't keep track of your own bullshit.

[shadowhawk]

Nonsense   Show me where I asked this.  Along with everything else this is a lie.

[Duchykins]

Just a few pages back you posted an article that tries to refute several positions in the "new atheism."  TO ME.  You clearly implied that if I did not defend "new atheism" then I am either an idiot or have an untenable position as an atheist.

 

More than five times in past you have posted a video TO ME that was about refuting similar "new atheist" stuff, and then after I told you those address arguments that are not my own, you either repeatedly demanded I deal with the video or you mocked me and claimed victory.

 

You post all of those arguments from other theists in the context that they defeat my own position.  Then you do a victory dance when I will not engage those arguments.  That is you trying to get me to defend some beliefs of other atheists I do not agree with.

Edited by Duchykins, 24 July 2015 - 08:37 PM.

[Duchykins]

Now there were a few times, early on before I knew what you were, that I tried to be serious and tell you a little bit about my position.   You never acknowledged that I even posted them, not even to mock them.  You bulldozed right over them and keep insisting I deal with your arguments against "new atheism." or some other crap I never spoke of nor agree with.  

 

 

It was an utter waste of my effort and time.  My time, which is my life.

 

So until you can demonstrate otherwise, we're not going to go back to me wasting my time being serious with you.  You are now a source of entertainment.

[shadowhawk]

I bet you think this about you, don't you?  I implied you are an "Idiot." That is your evidence!  I implied nothing of the sort.  I mocked you and claimed victory!!!  Nonsense again.  Where?  iF i WERE A SHRINK and I am not, this sounds like a thought disorder.  Please, enough of the straw man already.  Hay everyone He claims to be an Atheist but not a New one.  OK

[shadowhawk]

Now there were a few times, early on before I knew what you were, that I tried to be serious and tell you a little bit about my position.   You never acknowledged that I even posted them, not even to mock them.  You bulldozed right over them and keep insisting I deal with your arguments against "new atheism." or some other crap I never spoke of nor agree with.  

 

 

It was an utter waste of my effort and time.  My time, which is my life.

 

So until you can demonstrate otherwise, we're not going to go back to me wasting my time being serious with you.  You are now a source of entertainment.

 

Wow, no evidence and it is my fault.  The truth is you are making this up.  So your .... does not stink and you are going to play with me for entertainment!  
 

[Duchykins]

Of course I think about these things, it's in my nature.  It's part of the reason I'm pretty good with logic and philosophy, or so my teachers tell me.

 

So an example of my analytical nature is this:   I did immediately notice in your reply to me that instead of being serious and asking what my beliefs are ... you insinuated that I am mentally ill, delusional, and stupidly prone to committing fallacies.

 

More of the same from you.  You did not demonstrate that you're ready to be serious about this topic.

 

Edited by Duchykins, 24 July 2015 - 09:01 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins;  I did immediately notice in your reply to me that instead of being serious and asking what my beliefs are ... you insinuated that I am mentally ill, delusional, and stupidly prone to committing fallacies.

 

OK, EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS? 

[Duchykins]

 

Duchykins;  I did immediately notice in your reply to me that instead of being serious and asking what my beliefs are ... you insinuated that I am mentally ill, delusional, and stupidly prone to committing fallacies.

 

OK, EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS? 

 

 

Too soon:  I'm not yet convinced that this isn't just some ploy, you only asked me because you want to save face and show me up.  I don't know that you've changed much in the past ten minutes.  I don't want to have to spend a lot of effort interrupting a discussion to correct your methods of discourse.  But you're at least off to a productive start.

 

The capslock didn't help either.

[Duchykins]

However we can talk about what you think proving a negative is.  It's relevant because under strict definitions and circumstances, you can prove a universal negative from a logical standpoint.

[Duchykins]

I can also tell you a few things I do not believe, that may help you craft your replies in a manner that actually speaks to me:

 

- I do not believe that there are no gods (this is not the same as believing there are some gods).  I do not claim to have perfect knowledge.

 

- I do not believe that a failure of a theist to substantiate a certain type of god belief means that that god does not exist or that the believer is wrong.  

 

- I do not believe that a failure of a theist to substantiate a certain type of god belief means that that god's existence cannot be substantiated at all.

 

 

 

 

 

But:

 

I do believe that lack of good reason or evidence in support of a theistic view is sufficient for withholding adoption of that view until such time that the reasons or evidence surface.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Duchykins;  I did immediately notice in your reply to me that instead of being serious and asking what my beliefs are ... you insinuated that I am mentally ill, delusional, and stupidly prone to committing fallacies.

 

OK, EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS? 

 

 

Too soon:  I'm not yet convinced that this isn't just some ploy, you only asked me because you want to save face and show me up.  I don't know that you've changed much in the past ten minutes.  I don't want to have to spend a lot of effort interrupting a discussion to correct your methods of discourse.  But you're at least off to a productive start.

 

The capslock didn't help either.

 

 

I guess now I have insulted you.  OK take your time.
 

[shadowhawk]

However we can talk about what you think proving a negative is.  It's relevant because under strict definitions and circumstances, you can prove a universal negative from a logical standpoint.

We have discussed it before but more can be said.

 

3.  You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352
http://www.longecity...390#entry643348
http://www.longecity...390#entry643387
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126
http://www.longecity...450#entry646451
 

[shadowhawk]

I can also tell you a few things I do not believe, that may help you craft your replies in a manner that actually speaks to me:

 

- I do not believe that there are no gods (this is not the same as believing there are some gods).  I do not claim to have perfect knowledge.

 

- I do not believe that a failure of a theist to substantiate a certain type of god belief means that that god does not exist or that the believer is wrong.  

 

- I do not believe that a failure of a theist to substantiate a certain type of god belief means that that god's existence cannot be substantiated at all.

 

 

 

 

 

But:

 

I do believe that lack of good reason or evidence in support of a theistic view is sufficient for withholding adoption of that view until such time that the reasons or evidence surface.

So what kind of evidence do you accept for the beliefs you do have?

 

[Duchykins]

 

So what kind of evidence do you accept for the beliefs you do have?

 

 

It depends on the kind of belief it is, how important it is the grand scheme of things, how it might affect the people around me, how it might affect my behavior or attitude, etc.  The standard of evidence varies.

 

 

But generally there should be an underlying cogent reasoning, some empirical evidence, and if needed, scientific evidence.  We don't always need scientific evidence for justifying every belief we have, examples here would include some moral, political, socioeconomic beliefs (though it's certainly helpful).

 

Some of my beliefs simply come straight from culture though, without any particular evidence or sensible argument; everybody has at least a few of these... but these ones I have don't have any particular relation to religious positions.

 

With regard to many religious propositions, doesn't matter from which religion or which sect of a religion, if they don't pass my moral filters then I'm not going to accept them, and it's not always necessarily a willful rejection -- however, if some propositions do pass logical muster then they tend to already be morally acceptable to me since they would actually make sense.

 

I think one of the reasons I rely so heavily on my conscience for evaluating theistic beliefs is because there usually nothing else left to me once they fail logical and evidentiary (if needed) tests.   This didn't use to be the case ten years ago, it's just something that developed over time as I studied logic, philosophy of religion and talked to different kinds of theists all over the internet.

Edited by Duchykins, 25 July 2015 - 01:14 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Well if I introduced you to a person what kind of evidence would you need to know that person?

[Duchykins]

Well if I introduced you to a person what kind of evidence would you need to know that person?

 

What do you mean exactly?  

 

Do you mean know what kind of person they are, know details about them, or if they just exist?  

 

Or do you mean something else?

[The Brain]

Well if I introduced you to a person what kind of evidence would you need to know that person?

Why don't you just introduce us to god.....


Oh that's right

[sthira]

We're traveling, dangling off silks here in brilliant Asheville, North Carolina -- fun X ten, yes (!), but no evidence for God is up high, &no evidence for G-d is down low. :-(

Is no God up high evidence for no God down low? Is no God to the left and no God to the right evidence for no God left & right? How do we know God? Can we use our eyes & ears, our feet & toes, or is using our beautiful sensations to search for God against somehow the rules? We are really really Searching

[sthira]

However we can talk about what you think proving a negative is. It's relevant because under strict definitions and circumstances, you can prove a universal negative from a logical standpoint.

We have discussed it before but more can be said.

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352
http://www.longecity...390#entry643348
http://www.longecity...390#entry643387
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126
http://www.longecity...450#entry646451

Aww shit, more bed of nails. Mercy, Christians, have mercy on us of the lost circus tribes.

[sthira]

Personally I think Zack Condon is NOT evidence for atheism.

http://beirutband.com

[shadowhawk]

Personally I think Zack Condon is NOT evidence for atheism.

http://beirutband.com

 

Me too
 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

However we can talk about what you think proving a negative is. It's relevant because under strict definitions and circumstances, you can prove a universal negative from a logical standpoint.

We have discussed it before but more can be said.

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352
http://www.longecity...390#entry643348
http://www.longecity...390#entry643387
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126
http://www.longecity...450#entry646451

Aww shit, more bed of nails. Mercy, Christians, have mercy on us of the lost circus tribes.

 

 

Empty comment
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Well if I introduced you to a person what kind of evidence would you need to know that person?

 

What do you mean exactly?  

 

Do you mean know what kind of person they are, know details about them, or if they just exist?  

 

Or do you mean something else?

 

 

Suppose I told you there was a fantastic person I knew which I could introduce you to.  O don't know you but for the sake of the discussion, you like women and this was a great woman inside and out.  What kind of evidence would you need to sy you will check her out?
 

[Duchykins]

 

 

 

Suppose I told you there was a fantastic person I knew which I could introduce you to.  O don't know you but for the sake of the discussion, you like women and this was a great woman inside and out.  What kind of evidence would you need to sy you will check her out?
 

 

 

 

Well of course I'll agree to meet her based on your description, but I will have to speak to her myself for a bit, watch how she behaves in certain situations, to see what she is really like and see if I agree with your opinion of her.

Is that fair?  She would be a human.

[shadowhawk]

Yes she would be as I described her.  By human do you need all her measurements, blood type etc.?  If you don't like redheads does that rule her out?  How about talking to her on the phone first to see if you even like her?